Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18809 (ORI)

RAMESH CHANDRA NAYAK v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/15036/2026 · 2026-05-15

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NO.15036 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Sahu, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 15.05.2026 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously please to admit this writ petition, issue a rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to workout Department Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion from Senior Fisheries Technical Assistant (SFTA) to Assistant Fisheries Officer (AFO) was conducted on 27th January, 2026 within a stipulated time. If the Opposite parties fail to file show cause of show insufficient cause this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to make absolute the said rule and issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs directing the Opposite parties to workout Department Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion from Senior Fisheries Technical Assistant (SFTA) to Assistant Fisheries Officer (AFO) was conducted on 27th January, 2026 within a stipulated time. And further be pleased to pass such order or orders, issue any other further direction/directions deem(s) fit ad proper in the interest of justice and for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that request available at Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition is pending before Opp. Party No.1, but till date nothing has been done in the matter. In such background, Petitioner prays that a direction be issued to Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the above noted request within a specific time period. 5. Considering the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the request so available at Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition in accordance with law, within a period of three 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result of such exercise to the Petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita